The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice
The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/bjsw/bcq149
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Slonim-Nevo, Vered
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nevo, Isaac;Slonim-Nevo, Vered
在本文中，我们分析了循证实践（EBP）模型的五个步骤，并认为该模型在理论和实践上都存在严重局限性。我们认为，证据与实践之间的关系不能是提供基础的关系，至少在严格的逻辑或方法论意义上理解这一概念时不能如此。除了证据之外还必须考虑其他因素，并且必须解释它们与证据的关系。跟随其他人，我们主张以证据和理论为依据，对实践采取更全面的看法。循证实践（EIP）应被理解为排除非科学偏见和迷信，同时也为临床经验以及不断相互互动和对话的从业者和客户的建设性和富有想象力的判断留下了充足的空间。在EIP模型下，不需要EBP模型的五步程序，而只是从业者将了解广泛的来源——经验研究、案例研究和临床见解——并在整个干预过程中以创造性的方式使用它们。
In this paper, we analyse the five steps of the evidence-based practice (EBP) model and argue that this model has serious limitations, both theoretical and practical. We argue that the relationship between evidence and practice cannot be that of supplying a basis, at least not if that notion is understood in any strict logical or methodological sense. Other factors have to be taken account of in addition to evidence and their relation to the evidence has to be explained. Following others, we advocate a more comprehensive view of practice as informed by evidence and theory. Evidence-informed practice (EIP) should be understood as excluding non-scientific prejudices and superstitions, but also as leaving ample room for clinical experience as well as the constructive and imaginative judgements of practitioners and clients who are in constant interaction and dialogue with one another. Under the EIP model, there is no need for the five-steps procedure of the EBP model, but only that practitioners will become knowledgeable of a wide rang of sources-empirical studies, case studies and clinical insights-and use them in creative ways throughout the intervention process.